[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id

[Nicholas Jones]

> It's a slippery slope to reject ebuilds because we don't agree with the
> licenses imposed on the developers of those packages, or because we believe
> that they violate software patents. Where do you draw the line? There is no
> doubt that the linux kernel violates some (bad) patents. Should it
> potentially be removed? How about quake3 - I'm not allowed to rebrand and
> redistribute it without paying a lot of money for a license. Should it also
> be excluded from gentoo?

The difference is optional component versus a (required) standard.
This licence applies to an Internet Standard. Something that is to
be implemented Internationally on a critical infrastructure. If you
wanted to modify this standard, you would be subject to Microsoft's
licensing and approval _prior_ to the work, or you'd be subject to
suit.

You don't have to have quake3 to receive you're email from your bank,
but it's entirely possible that the only way you'll be able to
communicate with utilities and other businesses is via a Standard
protocol that subjects you to a non-public license.

What happens if you ISP is using postfix and for some reason
Microsoft terminates the agreement allowing Postfix to user
sender-id? Would your mail be dropped?

The problem with Sender-ID is almost purely the license. If MS has
no malintent with this creation, then they can provide all parts
under an agreement that is suitable for GLOBAL acceptance and
without termination clauses, et al. 

--NJ